CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiff (Daewoo) appeals from an order staying this action on the ground of forum non conveniens, pending resolution of related proceedings in federal court in New Jersey. Court affirm.

Appellants San Francisco Unified School District (the district) and the Board of Education of the San Francisco Unified School District (the board) appeal from a judgment reversing the board's decision to summarily terminate Marco A. Mendoza, a high school security guard. Appellants contend that the trial court failed to apply a sufficiently deferential standard of review when it determined that the penalty imposed by the board was too severe for making sexually inappropriate comments about female students and socializing with female students during class time. Court conclude that the board acted within its discretion in terminating Mendoza's employment, and thus court reverse.

Plaintiff was injured in the course and scope of her employment with Anheuser Busch, Inc. while working in the factory's bottling department. The accident occurred when she attempted to clean the glue bowl on the Topmatic machine that applied labels to beer bottles. The Topmatic is manufactured by Krones, Inc. (Krones). As a result of the accident, plaintiff lost part of one finger.
On appeal, plaintiff primarily contends that there was a triable issue of material fact whether the Topmatic was a power press. Secondarily, she contends that summary judgment was improper because defendant allegedly engaged in discovery abuses, the trial court erred in overruling plaintiff's objections to the declaration of defendant's expert, and triable issues of fact exist on the products liability claim. Todd concedes that the cause of action for loss of consortium is derivative of plaintiff's right to otherwise sue defendant. Court reject all of plaintiff's claims of error and therefore affirm the judgment.

Homayoun Bazargan appeals from the dismissal of his claims against David N. Glaser, M.D., a psychiatrist, for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Plaintiff worked as a waiter for defendant Hilton Universal City and Towers (Hilton), and Dr. Glaser interviewed plaintiff in connection with plaintiff's claim against Hilton for discrimination and sexual harassment. The trial court sustained Dr. Glaser's demurrer to plaintiff's claim for invasion of privacy, and entered summary judgment on his claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. On appeal, plaintiff argues that (1) his privacy was violated by the coerced psychological exam; (2) the trial court erred in striking his motion for punitive damages; (3) factual issues exist with respect to his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) Dr. Glaser owed him a duty of care even though Dr. Glaser was not plaintiff's treating physician, and his expert's declaration on the standard of care was insufficient; and (5) additional discovery belatedly produced by co defendant Hilton after judgment established the wrongful nature of the psychological examination. Court affirm.

Appellants argue that evidence is insufficient to support one of the robbery convictions against them and insufficient to support true findings on firearm and gang allegations. They also argue that a photographic lineup was impermissibly suggestive and violated their due process rights. Finally, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing amendment of the information. Court affirm the judgments.

The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly dismissed a complaint for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against two defendants. One defendant was dismissed after his demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. The other was dismissed when the court granted her special motion to strike. Court conclude that the appellant, Retra Financial, cannot demonstrate the requisite termination in its favor on the malicious prosecution cause of action and that the abuse of process cause of action cannot be based upon the recording and maintenance of a lis pendens in the underlying action. The trial court properly dismissed the action.

Mary Klein (Mary) is the widow of Alex Klein (Klein), and Alvin Klein (Alvin) and Mark Klein (Mark) are Klein's sons from a prior marriage. In a petition to determine the existence and terms of the Alex Klein Revised Trust (trust), Mary claimed that Klein had been unduly influenced to amend his trust on July 5, 1999, and leave her without support. Specifically, the amendment to the trust established that she had no interest in the eight unit apartment building (building) that Klein and she relied upon as their sole means of income during their marriage. Mary eventually entered into a settlement agreement with Alvin and Mark. But she later claimed that the probate court's approval of the settlement agreement was the result of extrinsic fraud that prevented her from presenting her whole case. Mary petitioned the probate court to vacate the settlement agreement and reinstate her petition to determine the existence and terms of the trust. According to Mary, the extrinsic fraud was a forged quitclaim deed that bore her signature and purported to convey her interest in the building to the trust. The effect of the forged quitclaim deed was to give the building to Alvin and Mark. She contends that she executed the settlement agreement only because she believed the quitclaim deed was valid. She further contends that she did not discover that the quitclaim deed was forged until many years after she agreed to settle her claim. The petition to vacate was denied, and Mary appealed.
Having found no error, court affirm.

In an action brought by an insurance company for the recovery of premiums that the defendant agent withheld from the insurer, the trial court imposed terminating sanctions against the agent for repeatedly flouting discovery requests and violating a court order to appear for deposition and mediation. The agent appeals. Court affirm.

A group of business trusts initially filed a lawsuit in federal court against several defendants, including a manufacturer, alleging common law fraud and violations under the Corporations Code and federal securities law. Over four years later, the federal district court dismissed with prejudice all federal causes of action against the manufacturer. It also dismissed the ancillary state and common law claims against the manufacturer for lack of jurisdiction. More than five months following the order, the trusts filed the same fraud claim against the manufacturer in state court. The superior court dismissed after sustaining a demurrer that the action was time barred. Court find the limitations period has not yet run, because the district court has not entered a final judgment pursuant to 28 United States Code section 1291 or certified the entry of a final judgment pursuant to rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 U.S.C.). Accordingly, court reverse.

Court review for a second time this appeal and cross appeal arising from a family property dispute. Court formerly reversed and remanded the matter for the trial court to issue a statement of decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 632. The parties now contest a portion of the judgment following remand. Finding no error, court affirm.

The mother, appeals from a juvenile court order pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 terminating the parental rights to the child, (who was born in June 2004). The mother's sole contention on appeal is the juvenile court erred in failing to apply the sibling relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(E). Because the parental rights termination order is supported by substantial evidence, court affirm.

A jury convicted Defendant of attempted robbery (Pen. Code, SS 211, 664), attempted grand theft (Pen. Code, SS 487, 664), public intoxication (Pen. Code, S 647, subd. (f)), and sustained two prior prison term allegations. (Pen. Code, S 667.5, subd. (b).) Defendant was sentenced to five years in prison: an upper term of three years for the attempted robbery count, a stayed 18 month term for attempted grand theft, and two one year terms for the prior prison terms.
On appeal, defendant contends the attempted grand theft conviction should be reversed because it is a lesser included offense of the attempted robbery conviction, the upper term sentence violates Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403] (Blakely), and the sentence for attempted grand theft was unauthorized. Court reverse the attempted grand theft conviction, vacate its sentence, and affirm the judgment in all other respects.

In case No. C052119, N.M. (mother) and D.D. (father), the parents of A.D., F.D., and B.D. (the minors), appeal from the juvenile courts orders terminating their parental rights as to A.D. and F.D. but continuing the selection and implementation hearing for B.D. In case No. C052983, they appeal from the juvenile court's order terminating their parental rights as to B.D. (Welf. and Inst. Code, SS 366.26, 395; further section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.) The appeals have been consolidated. For reasons that follow, court affirm the orders.

A jury convicted defendant of driving in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property while eluding a pursuing peace officer. (Veh. Code, S 2800.2, subd. (a).) Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for three years on the condition, among others, that he serve 365 days of incarceration with credit for eight days and with eligibility for education furlough during the second half of the jail term. Defendant was ordered to pay $670 in fines, penalty assessments and surcharges, plus $1,160 in costs to be paid separate from the fines, plus a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, S 1202.4) and a $200 restitution fine suspended unless probation is revoked (Pen. Code, S 1202.44).
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, court find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.